First Empire #23: Dispatches (Letters to the Editor)

Dispatches

Letters to the Editor

from First Empire Readers

Letters on: The Search for Sources...; Hofschröer replies to Uffindell...; That Hamilton-Williams Letter again...; Colonel Gordon & Marching Bands...; Nansouty...; A Veteran Returns...; Another Apology...; Updated Russian OB's; JC Strikes Back!; Hairy Delphics; Something Other Than Sharpe; Sharpe Entertainment; Reply to "More Non conformity Please"; Mouguerre or Moguere?; Reavley's Rules; St. Pierre O.B. Update

Editorial Notice

I refer to David Hamilton-Willaims’ first letter published on p35 of FE22, in particular to the allegations made by Mr. Hamilton-Williams against the academic prowess of Peter Hofschröer. Mr. Hofschröer has provided us with documentation confirming the following:

That he hold valid reader’s tickets and/or passes to the British Library, the National Army Museum and the Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv.

That he has corresponded with the following archives:

That he has received an award from the League of Bismarck for his work as an historian.

In view of the above, we accept that the allegations made by David Hamilton-Williams are entirely false and have no foundation. I apologise to Peter Hofschröer for the publication of these allegations and agree not to repeat them. I have also agreed to Mr. Hofschröer’s request to publish any similar and appropriate apology from the letter’s author, Mr. Hamilton-Williams.

I would remind readers of the Editorial guidelines as laid down in FE no. 20. To repeat these, authors of books, receiving payment for their work, must expect to receive criticism from our readers and must either accept or refute this criticism courteously. Personal and/or groundless attacks are not acceptable. Readers must keep to the subject matter and make their point with proper supporting evidence.

Personally I was somewhat distracted by events elsewhere when this letter went to press and failed to spot that the author of this letter might not have his got his facts quite right - so I am more than a little annoyed that this one slipped past, relying as I do on the honesty and integrity of contributors. Incidentally whilst researching a (future) diatribe on Napoleonic literature, I was struck by Mr. Hamilton-Williams’ claim to have sold “93,345” copies of Waterloo: New Perspectives - this is the figure quoted in the original letter and todate I have spoken with the author on two occassions and this figure has not been retracted, corrected or denied. A little in-depth research revealed that now that the paperback edition is available, the publishers are claiming sales approaching 25,000 - experience tells me that this maybe the number actually published as I wasn’t given an exact figure. Before further claims are made for “The Fall of Napoleon etc.”, I was told that sales of this title are well into 5 figures i.e.10,000 plus and they hope to sell some 20,000 copies. Even so these are still commendable sales figures. Below you will find a couple of further letters on the subject and hopefully this sad event will pass on to where it belongs after all this is a Napoleonic mag not Fantasy.

The Search for Sources...

Dear David,

In Dispatches, Issue #21, Grant Elliot from Perth requested source material for Napoleon’s Italian campaign and the 1812-14 period. May I recommend he acquire a copy of Napoleonic Military History, a Bibliography, edited by Donald D. Howard and published by Greenhill Books. It was published in 1986 and I have found it a wonderful source of references in all languages. Perhaps his local library would have a copy. For Orders of Battle, I would recommend George Nafziger’s collection. (c/o G.F. Nafziger, 8801 Tammy Drive, Westchester, OH, 45069, USA) It is very detailed, inexpensive, and can be ordered by specific campaign and nationality.

Your magazine gets better with each issue.

Sincerely,
Stephen J. Walker
Salem, Oregon, USA

Hofschröer replies to Uffindell...

Dear Sirs,

May I comment on a couple of points in Andrew Uffindell’s response to my review of his recent publication “The Eagle’s Last Triumph”.

Firstly, my criticism of this author’s use of Napier’s “Waterloo Letter”, which he disputes, was, I am afraid, correct. In note 5 on page 80, Uffindell states:

‘English historians have condemned the Prussian staff for the time both these important messages took to reach Wellington. The Duke himself declared, ‘I cannot tell the world that Blücher picked the fattest man in his army to ride with an express to me, and that he took thirty hours to go thirty miles’

Uffindell gives his source as being Siborne “The Waterloo Letters”, p.2. This is actually Napier’s letter. Uffindell accepts this point of Napier’s letter ‘as gospel’. However, German and Dutch historians have rightly disputed its reliability for the best part of a century. At the time of writing this letter, 28th November 1842, Napier was a sick man, racked by pain and on drugs to alleviate his condition. He may or may not have been aware of what he was writing. He also had reason for making false statements. He was thus not a reliable witness. Besides, it should not be forgotten that this statement by Napier is hearsay evidence. Siborne senior chose not to use the material in this letter in his “History”. This letter was first published by Siborne junior, after Wellington’s death. Thus what we have here is hearsay evidence from an unreliable witness first brought to light once the person to whom this statement is attributed can neither confirm nor deny having made it. Such a statement would never by accepted by a court of law as admissible. The view of the writer of this letter is that it is unwise for any historian to use such material. Furthermore, Wellington’s own statements on the time that he first heard of the outbreak of hostilities, contradictory though they may be, do not correspond to Napier. The writer of this letter is unaware of any eyewitnesses that do. Müffling does not. Ziethen does not, etc. There would appear to be no justifiable basis for taking this view.

Secondly, to Uffindell’s defence of the integrity of the Duke of Wellington where he states that:

‘... there is certainly not enough evidence to prove that Wellington deliberately misled Blücher.’

In his bibliography, Uffindell cites Ollech’s “Geschichte”, published in 1876. Ollech’s major contribution to research of this campaign was to locate a letter from Wellington to Blücher timed at 10.30 am on 16th June 1815. Ollech published a facsimile of this letter in his book. There is no doubt that it is in the Duke’s own handwriting. This letter contains misleading information as to the positions of the Duke’s army. It indicates that his concentration was much more advanced that it was. This letter was never published in the “Despatches” nor in the “Supplementary Dispatches”. The Duke himself never referred to having written it. The information given in this letter indicated that Wellington was in a position to intervene at Ligny in force that day. The Duke had ridden from Brussels that very morning, past those formations. Only a couple of hours later, he told Blücher firstly in writing and, then, according to a number of eyewitnesses, verbally, that these formations were in positions they could not possibly have reached by that time. Both Chesney and Ropes are very critical of the Duke on this point. One thus asks oneself why the Duke was misinforming Blücher. To the writer of this letter, there are two possibilities. Firstly, that the Duke suffered from such poor eyesight that he did not see his army when he rode past it, or, secondly, that he deliberately misled Blücher. As there would appear to be no further evidence to support the first possibility, it seems logical that the second is correct. The writer of this letter has been unable to find a discussion of this point in Uffindell’s book but would be grateful to hear his views on it. With his expert knowledge of the subject, no doubt he can help us further.

With regard to Delbrück’s views on the above, the writer of this letter tends to agree with Horsburgh (“Waterloo: A Narrative and a Criticism”, London 1900, p 312) on this. He states:

‘If Herr Delbrück can produce anything over and above Wellington’s letter to Blücher .... English writers will unquestionably be prepared to examine it with attention, but if, as we shrewdly suspect, the Duke’s letter is the only and ultimate pièce de conviction, few will be inclined, on the strength of that letter alone, to endorse the sweeping charges of the Preussische Jahrbuch.’

Archive research into this campaign came largely to a halt with the First World War. Only in recent years has all the archive material available on this subject become easily accessible. A comparative analysis of the papers of Wellington, Gneisenau and Dörnberg has yet to be published. Until then, the writer of this letter holds the view that statements like those of Uffindell that, ‘.... there is certainly not enough evidence to prove that Wellington deliberately misled Blücher’, cannot be sustained.

If Uffindell is of the opinion that issues like the timing of the arrival of the first news of the outbreak of hostilities in Wellington’s headquarters and the basis on which battle was accepted at Ligny are ‘small points’, then he is entitled to his opinion. Had Wellington reacted at 9 am on 15th June instead of early that evening, then he would on 16th June have been in a position to attack the French left flank in force at Ligny. The battle could then have been a decisive victory to the Allies. History would have been quite different. With accurate information from the Duke on the morning on 16th June, Blücher may well have staged only a rearguard action at Ligny and concentrated his forces for the decisive battle on 17th, when Wellington would really have been in a position to assist him. Had the Duke given Blücher accurate information, then the Battle of Ligny may never had taken place at all, and Andrew Uffindell would never have written about it. A ‘small point’?

If Andrew feels that I am being negative when I make statements about his book like:

Then I must apologise to him. He is certainly right to say that ‘The British Army Review’ takes a different line than this. However, he is wrong to say his book is ‘the first to examine the Battle of Ligny in detail’. Treuenfeld, Sothen and Pflugk-Harttung amongst others already have.

I hope the above comments will be of interest to your readers.

Yours faithfully,
Peter Hofschröer
Rietberg, Germany

Cook Review of The Eagles' Last Triumph
Watkins Review of The Eagles' Last Triumph

That Hamilton-Williams Letter again...

Dear Dave,

I am all in favour of vigorous debate, I even welcome a bit of light hearted mischief. Mr Hamilton-Williams, however, has reduced the process to an unacceptably low level. Of his two letters in FE22, the second is, in my view, simply puerile and pointless. If I may borrow the words of Thomas Carlyle it is “a product of the smaller intestine”.[1]

I write in the context of the first letter, which is disingenuous in the extreme, and although Peter Hofschröer is perfectly capable of looking after himself, I would like the opportunity to correct at least some of Mr Hamilton-Williams’ inventions.

The controversy stems essentially from Peter Hofschröer’s objection to, what he considers to be, Mr Hamilton-Williams’ flawed treatment of the Sibornes’ who the latter accuses, to all intents and purposes, of fraud and deceit. For those who do not have Mr Hamilton-Williams’ book, Waterloo - New Perspectives, his case purports to demonstrate that Captain William Siborne misrepresented events, both in the context of his model of Waterloo and his book, History of the War in France and Belgium in 1815. His motive? Money apparently. Simply stated he was, according to Mr Hamilton-Williams, bribed.

A selection of the letters received by William Siborne, containing recollections of numerous witnesses to the events of 1815, were later published by his son, Major General Herbert Siborne, as The Waterloo Letters, but, because Siborne the younger chose to publish only a proportion of the total correspondence, this, the reader is told, is evidence of a plot to further the reputation of Siborne the elder and to conceal his deceit.

This case against two well known 19th Century British sources, including a substantial body of primary evidence by eyewitnesses, now deemed “dubious”, has either gone, it seems, virtually unnoticed or has been received uncritically and with a degree unquestioning acceptance which is simply naive.

It has been said that though God cannot alter the past, historians can; it is perhaps because they can be useful to Him in this respect that He tolerates their existence.”[2]

Having read Mr Hamilton-Williams’ theory myself, even if it be true, it certainly does not, in my opinion, produce any convincing evidence to support it, merely opinion and supposition.

Be that as it may, the allegation of an ulterior motive on Peter Hofschröer’s part in the context of a forthcoming book, is not true. Sadly there is no book by Peter Hofschröer on Waterloo “soon to be published”. That is an invention. I do like the supposed title though and recommend it to Peter Hofschröer, with suitable acknowledgement of course. Furthermore, should he decide to write such a book, since Peter Hofschröer and David Chandler are friends which, on the basis of Mr Hamilton-Williams’ implied relationship with the latter, I am rather surprised he seems to be unaware of, doubtless Peter Hofschröer only need ask for access to his collection should he want it.

As an aside, lack of academic qualifications has never, in my experience, been a bar to obtaining access to most institutions in this country, or abroad for that matter. All one need do is ask. The British Library, for example, is publicly funded and, as such, is there for the use of the people who pay for it. Any suggestion that access is limited to the intellectual elite is rubbish and it is very silly to suggest that this is the case in front of an audience that is bound to include people who know better.

Next we have the question of Peter Hofschröer’s qualifications. Peter Hofschröer actually has an Honours degree in history and German. I am astonished, particularly since I understand that Mr Hamilton-Williams and Peter Hofschröer are acquainted, that Mr Hamilton-Williams is unaware of this. The less generous might construe this as deliberate defamation. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, however, it is to be hoped that Mr Hamilton-Williams’ research in the context of his books is rather better than his research in the context of Peter Hofschröer’s academic qualifications. I recommend he makes sure of his facts in future as it only makes him look very foolish indeed when he doesn’t.

“Du sublime au ridicule il n’y a qu’un pas.”[3]

So, having established that Peter Hofschröer has sufficient academic qualifications to make critical review of Mr Hamilton-Williams’ book, we may also say that he is also qualified, both in this context and that of his personal friendship with David Chandler, to state that the latter’s book on Waterloo[4] is largely third hand. An examination of the 34 cited documentary and published works in the selected bibliography to David Chandler’s book, shows, by my calculation, that at least 23 are tertiary works, 6 are secondary, and 5 are primary. One could argue that Peter Hofschröer has been generous. Indeed, any analysis based on secondary sources can only be third hand. I am astonished that a PhD appears to find the relationship so hard to grasp but I really don’t understand why Mr Hamilton-Williams seems to think that being third-hand is necessarily a criticism..

“Nihil tam absurde dici potest, quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum”.[5]

He has not understood the point. The comment was made in the context of a subsequent author, namely Alan Schom, who Peter Hofschröer criticises for, apparently, using David Chandler’s book, and Scott Bowden’s 6 for that matter, rather than more original sources of information, the complaint being that by using a tertiary source, Schom’s becomes fourth-hand, at least in part and, therefore, is not particularly useful. If Peter Hofschröer’s criticism is accurate, this is fair comment.

Those who complain when such shortcomings are pointed out are, it seems to me, simply making a noise to fill the space between their ears.

“Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens”.[7]

Whilst I can certainly understand that Mr Hamilton-Williams might not like Peter Hofschröer’s criticisms, he has produced little, if anything, to refute them and has relied on personal slight, all of which, in this case, is untrue.

His cause would have been greatly improved by silence.

Footnotes:

Yours sincerely,
John Cook

Colonel Gordon & Marching Bands...

Dear Sirs,

I would be obliged if you could pass on the following to Mr. Terry Senior, in response to his letter in issue number 22:

“There is a monument to Colonel Gordon, 150m to the North of the Haye Sainte farm, along the Brussels - Charleroi road, opposite the Monument of the Hanoverians. It consists of a pillar on a base surrounded by an iron fence and was built in 1817. Colonel Gordon was buried in the Waterloo cemetery however and according to the limited information I have, the coffin was later moved to the Evere cemetery. (Evere is a northern Brussels suburb, perhaps known to you as the location of NATO headquarters.) I do not know of any monument there.”

Furthermore I would like to ask if anyone has any information on the exact marching formation of a French Napoleonic infantry band, including the order of the various instruments.

Yours sincerely,
Sven Biscop
Willebroek, Belgium

Nansouty....

Dear Sir,

Tony Link’s article on Nansouty, in the twenty second issue, made interesting reading. If you will permit, some of his observations do merit a response.

Tony Link’s criticisms of Nansouty, to be found in less detail in other books, may be summarised in three areas. First, in the final campaign in 1814, he lacked a grasp of events and his judgement was poor.

Secondly, in deploying and committing his troops he was cautious to a fault.

Finally his espousal of the Bourbons with obvious enthusiasm calls his personal integrity into question.

In 1814 Nansouty had served actively for over twenty two years. He had served in the Campaign of 1612, had been wounded, and recalled to active service prematurely. Surely, in modern jargon, he was suffering from ‘burnout’. Massena would appear to have had similar problems in Spain in 1810 and Ney was most certainly past his best in 1815. It is hardly fair to question his status as a great cavalry commander because his personal resources were finite. His achievements in 1805 and 1809 put his reputation and stature beyond question, as late as 1813 he displayed all his earlier qualities, Tony Link avers that he led the Guard Cavalry ‘from the front’ in 1813. A Russian veteran of the Seven Years’ War observed of Nansouty’s qualities at Dresden, that they reminded him of von Seydlitz’s conduct at Zorndorf. Neither Nansouty’s courage nor his skill can be seriously questioned.

His care in husbanding his troops and his reluctance to waste their lives speaks volumes for his humanity. He did not appear to seek to build his reputation on the needless sufferings of others. This might not have endeared bin to his colleagues. He would not have had much in common with the commanders of the First World War either.

His change of sides in 1814 is more difficult to analyse. Bessières, who was not an aristocrat, was a conservative practising Catholic and he survived the revolution and thrived under the Empire. Little seems to be known of Nansouty’s political or religious views. He served the revolution but it is difficult to imagine a man of his background and sensibilities having anything in common with Hérbert or Chaumette.

His early espousal of the Bourbons, and especially his link with the, (Comte d’ Artois, puts him far to the right. It is possible that he hated the futile waste inherent in the struggles after 1812. It is possible that he became increasingly nostalgic for the values of the Ancien Regime. It is hard to see him as a blatant careerist. Such do not care for the lives of others, nor do they win the approbation of a subject people in occupied territories as did Nansouty in Hanover.

The answer my be quite simple; perhaps he was a patriot who sought to serve his country as dictated by circumstances. As an overriding principle, it would preclude permanent allegiances and govern his final choice.

It was both enjoyable and thought - provoking to read Tony Link’s article, far too many writers have damned Nansouty with faint praise. There is a genuine need to redress the balance.

Yours sincerely,
Brendan A. King
Shipley, West Yorkshire.

A Veteran Returns...

Dear Dave,

As a pensioner who finally put away his “toy soldiers” some fourteen years ago. I was naturally dubious when a much younger friend introduced me to issue 22 of First Empire.

Although I’ve had a lifelong interest in the Napoleonic Wars, I had read so many poor “magazines” dealing with the subject that I had ceased buying the model and wargames publications because the rare articles on this period were often badly written or, perhaps more fairly. seemed to be included simply as spacefillers.

Not so with First Empire! Imagine my surprise and delight at a whole magazine, well laid out and glossy, with numerous articles and letters all concerning Napoleon and his campaigns!

The Napoleonic Newsdesk feature is a great idea at informing us readers of forthcoming local events and should be continued, while in my view the letters were some of the finest - and varied - which I’ve read in any recent magazine. Lots of controversy makes for a great read. despite this Hamilton-Williams Vs Hofschröer debate in danger of being blown out of all proportion, and I look forwards to reading future “Dispatches” with keen. interest.

On a different note. I think its also helpful now that Carlton TV are making these “Sharpe” episodes on a regular basis. I must admit to having never read any of the books (its the gardening. you see!) but Sean Bean as Richard Sharpe does extremely well - or so my daughter is fond of saying! Anything which can widen the appeal of the Napoleonic period be it a film, book or television programme should be encouraged.

Now that I have discovered First Empire (sorry it has taken me so long!) I intend to stay with it and look forwards to an exciting future with the magazine. Who knows, I may even be persuaded to rejoin the Napoleonic Association once again!

Please keep up the good work!

Yours sincerely,
C. Burley.
Dronfield, Sheffield

Another Apology...

Dear Dave,

Since submitting my item on Austria (FE22), George Nafziger has told me that nothing in Bowden + Tarbox is drawn from his works. I am now mystified as to how a small bit of ‘Krieg 1809’ got into ‘Armies on the Danube’! George’s new ‘Guide to Napoleonic Warfare’ covers Austria’s basic tactics etc. and shows where B+T went wrong.

Regards,
Dave Hollins
Stamford, Lincs.

Updated Russian OB’s

Dear David,

Enclosed is the revised Russian order of battle of the 1799 campaign in Holland. After much research I’m pretty sure that this is the most nearest (if not ‘the’) order of battle of the Russian troops participating in this campaign.

The 6 combined grenadier regiments were the following:

Their composition was as follows:

The grenadier and musketeer regiments present were the following:

Yours Sincerely,
Geert van Uythoven
Willemstad, The Netherlands

JC Strikes Back!

Dear Magnus,

British historians are largely monoglot? Who said that? Not I. Hé tou elegkhou agnoia I think.[1] As for unseemly births, I am afraid this is a bit too obscure for me. Ignotium per ignotious perhaps.[2] I have no complaint with British historians. Unfortunately, like Wellington’s infantry, there are not many of them, and although I can agree that formal training is not necessarily a bar to good writing, sometimes it is a positive disadvantage.

Why is my comparison of recent works on the American Civil War with those on the Napoleonic period invidious?[3] Perhaps you meant insidious.[4] I would, of course, reject that also. My comparison was not with the source material but with the product. The inference of what you seem to be saying is that because the Napoleonic period is hard to research, it is impossible to write something good on the subject. I don’t agree, although I concede the possibility of putting words in your mouth. If an author does not use standard foreign language sources I can only assume it is because he cannot read them, the result being that the reader gets a slanted and incomplete account. How can it be otherwise? Res ipsa loquitor [5] in the legal and actual sense.

As for the danger of giving personal offence, was it not for a highly developed though, I am told, peculiar sense of humour, I would be tempted to suggest that you take just a nip of your own advice. In which context, for the sake of balance you understand, if we are going to have the rank amateur included in your list, one must allow the inclusion of the idiot to whom the adjective academic is applied? If you think I am being mischievous [6] here, then you’d be right of course.

Must close now, something stuck in my cheek.

Footnotes:

Yours Sincerely
John Cook

Hairy Delphics...

Dear David,

I see that my Delphic utterances ex cathedra (the one in the closet) have been misunderstood by Peter Hofschröer; permit me to clarify them.

The point that I was making about works on the American Civil War. is that while they are no doubt excellent in their way, they are an irrelevance, precisely because they are in English: and thus comprehensible.

I will admit to being no friend of monoglossy. I wince when I see “voltiguers” (sic! the e and the u have been transposed) and am a sworn enemy of diacritic failure (accents ye ken). Incidentally, I looked through the ‘Dispatches’ pages and counted no less than nine missing accents (mostly umlauts). This is surprising in a journal which has coped with Swedish. (Ed. I tend to use what the contributor uses, hence Jager, Jäger or Jaeger, as long as its clear what is meant, I don’t see a problem, unless yoü have a sád lifè and nöthing ön thé tëlly!). It should be mentioned that the non-anglophone contributors seem to have a command of the English language which puts the native speaker to shame.

I must admit to taking it as a personal affront when I hear talk of “technically untrained monoglots”; since I have a reasonable command of French and Spanish, though my German is not what it once was.

Let us examine the case. One will make no comment on the eponymous writer’s academic qualification (or lack of them) as I have no knowledge on this matter and suspect others to be as ignorant. As to the matter of linguistic competence of the writer, he or she may have a reading knowledge even if they could not order a meal, never mind discuss Existentialism in French or Hegelian Philosophy in German . One must conclude that the “technically untrained monoglots” are a matter of hearsay. One is tempted to quote the Kaiser’s (Wilhelm) reputed annotation on a report with which he disagreed, but as this is unsuitable for an improving journal such as this, restraint will be exercised. Enough has been said on this matter.

Can I make a plea for information on Napoleonic artillery; as I appear to be a little bald on this.

Yours hisute,
Magnus Guild
Edinburgh

Something Other Than Sharpe...

Dear Dave,

Since reading the ‘Shape’ novels I have become very interested in other novels written about this period. So far I have read five and maybe some of your reader’s might like them bought to their attention.

‘The exploits of Brigadier Gerard” by Arthur Conan Doyle tells of the adventures of a dashing French Hussars. The hero is both laughable and loveable, gallant valiant and vain. I found the book a most enjoyable read. It is published by Canongate Press ISBN 0 86241 3419.

“Seven Men of Gascony” by R.F. Delderfield gives a very interesting portrayal of the experience of a group of voltigeurs of the 87th Regiment of the Line as they serve the Emperor in his campaigns throughout Europe. It was published by Coronet Books ISBN 0340 17420X.

Also by Delderfield is “Too Few for Drums” in which Ensign Keith Graham, a sergeant and seven private soldiers find themselves cut off from the main army after the victory at Bussaco and of their perilous journey to reach the coast and safety. Its quite a good read - not as historically based as the others. It is published by Corgi ISBN 0 552 08998 2.

“The Pawn” by Leonard A. Knight tells of the exploits of Peter Drewett a soldier in the 95th Rifles who, because of his ability to speak a number of languages, serves Wellington as a spy during the Peninsular War. Like the latter book a fairly good read but its almost like a story which just happens to find itself with this particular setting. I bought it as a large print book published by Cedric Chivers Ltd. ISBN 0 85997 252 6.

“Baltic Mission” by Richard Woodman tells of the intriguing exploits of naval Captain Nathaniel Drinkwater as in 1807 he has to liaise with allies as they reel in defeat. A very interesting read giving the readers more of the historical flavour of the period than the latter two. Published by Sphere, ISBN 0 7474 0017 2.

I admit to finding novels a very absorbing way to experience, albeit vicariously, the European military scene of two hundred years ago and would very much enjoy exchanging correspondence with others out there with a similar interest.

Yours sincerely,
Ian Moore
12 Grange Road, Ballygawley,
Co. Tyrone. N. Ireland. BT70 2LP

Sharpe Entertainment...

Dear Dave,

I have just watched “Sharpe’s Sword” and must say how much I enjoyed the recent series.

Sean Bean has really made the role of the roguish Rifleman his own and I’m pleased he now has more green jackets under his command that the tiny hard-core of six, as in the first two episodes.

I also have some suggestions for future series, so producers, take note:-

I hope you consider these points as valid and that your regular correspondent, Richard Moore, will continue to inform us ‘First Empire’ readers on how production of the next series is going.

Please keep up the good work!

Yours sincerely,
Stuart Hardy
Wales, Sheffield.

Reply to “More Non conformity Please”

Dear Dave,

Artists, film producers etc., often need soldiers to look like soldiers, unless the storyline quotes/indicates quite succinctly that the reason for them looking like a band of brigands or escapees from Newgate is the lack of alternative suitable clothing. We find that 99% of people who watch “Sharpe” for example expect soldiers to be dressed more or less uniformly, save a few rips and wear and tear, easily explained by the things that happen to soldiers on-screen, and are confused by anything odd/eccentric and not ‘explained’. Less than 1% of our viewing audience fall into the category of most readers of First Empire, and have the knowledge to fully appreciate such aspects. However, I can assure David O’Connor that in our case such opportunities that are contained within the scripts for us to portray the Common Soldier At War in all his misery are seized on if the close-up permits! Watch this space... or volunteer for the South Essex, for “Sharpe’s Regiment”.

There, now I’ve given it away....!

I would also attempt (again) to answer the comments in Mr Guild’s letter, but I think I covered that last time.

My thanks to All readers who wrote and supported Us last year - all your letters and calls are read and answered, and we really appreciate them. From a Common Soldier who hopes to see some of you around this year, at NA events or “Making Of Sharpe” displays in various museums.

Rifleman Moore,
Backin Barracks.

Mouguerre or Moguere?

Dear Mr. Watkins,

I enjoyed the article on the Battle of St. Pierre very much, having visited that location last fall with the Midas Tour. Could you or your readers tell me the translation of origin of the name of the town Mouguerre (Oman) or Moguere (Napier), a village involved in that battle?

There is also a town Moguer on the South West Coast of Spain near Huelva, a name I presume of the same etymology,

I would appreciate any help.

Sincerely,
Frank Milloy, M.D.
Glencoe, Illonois

Reavley’s Rules...

Dear Sir,

I was most interested to read of Charles Reavley’s preference for (his version of) Dennis and Knight’s ‘Napoleonic Rules for a large-scale Wargame’. FE20 page 12. These rules were drawn to my attention some years ago, but I have never seen them referred to before now. The apparent lack of awareness of this excellent set of rules is a shame. Perhaps through your pages Mr. Reavley could explain ‘his version’ of these rules and thereby introduce them to others?

The magazine goes from strength to strength.

Yours,
K.M. Webb
Market Harborough, Leicester.

St. Pierre O.B. Update

Dear Sir,

I am writing concerning the request for the order of battle for St. Pierre in issue 21 of First Empire.

I agree with the Anglo - Portuguese order of battle except the 2nd Division

2nd Division

Ashworth’s Brigade 18th Line (not 8th as stated, rest of brigade correct)

Artillery

Tulloh’s Battery - Portuguese

Ross’s Battery, A Company Royal Horse Artillery

9th Cacadores attached.

Soult’s Forces

General de Division (GD) Comte d’Erlon’s Corps

1st Division: GD Baron Foy (in second line) 5608

2nd Brigade: GB Baron Berlier

2nd Division: GD Baron Darmagnac 5914-155, Baden 5757

2nd Brigade: Gruardet (sic)

3rd Division: GD Baron Abbé 6326

2nd Brigade: Maucomble

6th Division: GD Darricau 5519

2nd Brigade: Baron Mocguery

Cavalry Brigade: GB Baron Sparre

GD Baron Clausel's Corps

5th Division. GD Baron Maransin (in 2nd line with Foy) 5579

2nd Brigade: Rouget

4th Division: GD Baron Taupin (in 3rd Line) 6098

2nd Brigade: Baron Gasquet

Attached cavalry

Sincerely, Stefan Hoven, Limal, Belgium

Editor: My thanks to Stefan for taking the time to provide this information. Unfortunately, despite the fact that I have been able to read joined up writing since I was four, I have not been able to accurately transcribe the above list and have excluded other information provided owing to the hand-written nature of the offering. Would all contributors please note that if you want to be published and can’t provide printed output, please write clearly - yes finger spacing if necessary (!) and if using abbreviations please state what they are at the beginning! Stefan, don’t feel persecuted you are not alone... the others ended up in the bin that’s all!

Letter to Editor in FE#37

Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #23
Back to First Empire List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1995 by First Empire.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com